Appeal 6006746

The appeal is dismissed.

The application form description of development was expansive and included justification and references to the previous boundary treatment. I have therefore used the decision notice description, as is also on the appeal form, although without reference to it being retrospective as that is not a development type. As the development is retrospective, I have determined the appeal on that basis.

The main issues are: • whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) (2024) and any relevant development plan policies; • the effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; • the effect of the development on highway safety; and • whether other considerations clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm so as to amount to very special circumstances.

The site lies within the Green Belt. The Framework establishes that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The construction of new buildings in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate, subject to several exceptions.

None of those Framework exceptions applies. As such, the proposal comprises inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and conflicts with Section 13 of the Framework. It therefore also conflicts with Policy CS19 of the [name] and Urban Core Plan for Gateshead and [site address] 2010-2030 (CS), and Policy DM31 of the [site address] Development and Allocations Plan 2015- 2030 (DAP), as these reiterate that development in the Green Belt will be protected, and development only allowed, in accordance with national policy.

The Framework paragraph 142 identifies that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Openness has spatial and visual aspects, and is a matter of planning judgement. The previous boundary treatment was a 0.6m high stone wall with 1.2m high metal railings above, and metal railing gates approximately 2.1m at their highest point between stone piers. The proposal is for a white rendered wall 2.0m high, with two 1.8m high sliding solid metal gates. The new wall and gates therefore result in a slight additional volumetric massing, and thus a minor harmful loss of openness in spatial terms.

Visually, the main impression of the previous boundary would have been the low stone wall with thick vegetation above, along with glimpsed views across the frontage through the two gates. This has created a clear additional extent of enclosure in comparison to the previous position, despite there being no encroachment beyond the established residential plot. The openness has reduced due to the permanence and rigid solidity of the new wall compared to vegetation, and its extent across the full frontage in combination with the gates.

For these reasons, the openness of the Green Belt is harmed, both spatially and visually. The development is thus inappropriate development, which is, by definition, harmful. Although this is relatively minor in extent, the Framework requires that I give this harm substantial weight. For this reason it therefore again conflicts with Section 13 of the Framework, the CS Policy CS19, and the DAP Policy DM31.

[address] is the primary street through Woolsington. A unifying boundary feature along its eastern side comprises a low natural stone wall with angled coping, often with hedging or fencing behind, and allowing for open views through gateways. This wall originally marked the boundary of the former Woolsington Park and Hall, and it contributes to the local character and sense of place. High quality design, as required by the Framework, would therefore respond to and respect this feature.

The use of render for the appeal proposal wall provides continuity with the façade of the house, but its colour, materials, and texture are in stark contrast with the wall and other nearby boundary treatments, notwithstanding that the wider streetscene does contain some variety in boundary heights and styles. In this regard I do particularly note the 2.0m high artificial stone wall beyond the dwelling immediately to the north of the appeal site. However, that is itself unduly prominent, and the railings of its entrance gate feature do at least allow for some permeability and punctuation. It does not set an acceptable precedent so as to justify the appeal proposal.

Although the render finish could be amended to a material such as stone cladding by the imposition of a condition, this improvement would still result in an imposing and high extent of wall, and there has been no indication that the gate material could be similarly altered. This amendment would therefore not sufficiently mitigate the harm to the streetscene.

The baseline comparison position is explained as having been dense frontage planting, but vegetation forms a soft and pleasant juxtaposition and contribution to built form even where it blocks views. In this instance, it does not equate to the same impact as a wall with solid gates, which is incongruous within its context.

Overall, the proposal causes moderate harm to the character and appearance of the area. It therefore conflicts with the CS Policy CS15 and the [name] DM20 and DM23. Together they require development to deliver high quality design by taking full advantage of positive site features, to use materials appropriate to the characteristics of the area, and to respond positively to and protect local distinctiveness and character.

The Council considers that the height, siting, and design of the wall and gates results in severely restricted visibility for vehicles exiting the property. I accept that it would be difficult for a driver to have a full view of the pavement until after the bonnet of their car has manoeuvred slightly onto it, and even more difficult if reversing out. This creates a potential risk for pavement users, where pedestrian traffic is likely due to the pedestrian island immediately south of the dwelling.

Nonetheless, it is evident that the previous boundary arrangement, including its vegetation over which there would have been no planning control, would have resulted in a similar extent of visibility. The appeal proposal has not amended the established location of the access points. Pavement users would not find such vehicle movements entirely unexpected, and exiting drivers would be cautious.

Moreover, the space available within the frontage and the ability to use two access points indicates that reversing out is not essential. The introduction of electric sliding gates rather than manual opening gates also represents a very minor betterment in terms of reducing wait times for vehicles turning fully off the highway.

On this basis, I find the development does not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. It thus complies with the CS Policy CS13 and the DAP Policy DM14, with regard to ensuring that development connects safely to existing transport networks, and adequately mitigates against its impact on the highway network. It also aligns with the Framework paragraph 116, whereby development should only be prevented on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

The appellant identifies the appeal proposal was needed as the previous structure became damaged and compromised. However, I see no reason why that requirement for a new durable and coherent boundary solution, should preclude the ability to provide one which is a positive response to the character and appearance of the streetscene and its Green Belt location. This need for a replacement structure therefore provides no weight in favour.

In summary, the development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt in the terms set out by the Framework, and reduces its openness. Paragraph 153 requires that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt, albeit in this instance I find the harm to be relatively minor, and that inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. It further explains that very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The development also causes moderate harm to the character and appearance of the area, to which I give moderate weight, and this could not be fully overcome by the use of conditions to require the use of different facing materials.

Against the totality of this harm, I place only very minimal weight on the benefit from the introduction of the sliding gates. Other considerations therefore do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm, and so do not form very special circumstances so as to justify the proposal.

In conclusion therefore, the development conflicts with the development plan as a whole. With no other material considerations indicating otherwise, for the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.